Sodium lauryl sulfate is an effective degreaser used to clean oil stains from the floor of my mechanic's repair shop; what's it doing in my toothpaste and my daughter's bubble bath? And, why is the long-known carcinogen nitrosamine, banned in Canada and the European Union, still a common ingredient in my mascara, concealer, sunless tanning lotion and baby shampoo?
The simple answer is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still doesn't bother to regulate anything it dismisses as cosmetics -- any products used topically -- despite the growing science showing how easily poisons and pollutants can be absorbed through the skin. Since the 1930s, the only thing the FDA regulates is the accuracy of the labeling on cosmetics.
As long as manufacturers list in gory detail the witches' brew of industrial chemicals, heavy metals, and toxic substances they blend into your eye cream or face wash, they are free to dump whatever they want into your epidermis.
As consumers, we are left to defend ourselves armed only with unintelligible ingredient labels and confusing news reports about what parts per billion of something can cause cancer or Alzheimer's. Americans are taking their bodies on a magical mystery tour full of chemicals and heavy metal toxins by way of basic grooming habits.
Just a little Googling reveals that every day we are exposed through personal care products to more than 10,000 nasty chemicals banned elsewhere in the world. Everything from lip balm to hand lotion is filled with stuff we wouldn't dream of putting in our stomachs. Instead, we eagerly spread it over the largest organ of the body -- ensuring effective absorption and exposure to a daily dose of illness-inducing and cancer-causing garbage. The american medicine cabinet has become a virtual love canal of hidden industrial waste that wouldn't be allowed anywhere else.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency requires workers to wear protective gloves, clothing, and goggles when handling chemicals like Diazolidinyl Urea and Propylene Glycol when they manufacture your favorite antiperspirant. The EPA warns workers against skin contact with these chemicals because they are known to cause brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities -- in concentrations lower than those found in off-the-shelf stick deodorants. By contrast, you are not even given a fair warning by the deodorant industry as it encourages you to apply these very same poisons to your naked underarms every morning.
Okay, so according to Washington it's every woman for herself, but ever try to read the ingredients of your shampoo? I mean the ingredients that are actually listed? Good luck even pronouncing isobutylparaben. And if "fragrance" is involved you'll never actually get the straight story. Fragrance is protected as a trade secret and up to 200 suspect ingredients can be buried in there with no call-out.
In a recent Congressional hearing the head of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Stephen Sundlof, waved the white flag when he said, "The law as it is currently written allows virtually anything to be incorporated into a cosmetic." This lack of oversight means that consumers actually know very little about what makes up their make-up. And there is little rigor to the enforcement of existing policies: only nine out of tens of thousands of chemicals have been banned in the U.S., compared to 11,000 so far in the E.U.. Even more alarming is the fact that only 11 percent of ingredients used by Americans in personal care products have even been reviewed for safety -- by anyone.
So, what have the Europeans and Canadians figured out that we have not? For one, their governments don't rely on a voluntary reporting system to monitor product safety. Incidents -- from adverse reactions to longitudinal health surveys -- are made public by law. Under decades-old U.S. law, cosmetics companies are not required to publicly submit information on the safety of their products so, surprise, they don't. And the toothless FDA relies almost solely on the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), the industry's self-policing safety panel, for its product safety data. European regulators do their own safety research and reporting.
While the poets may consider your body a wonderland, the truth is it's more likely a wasteland of built-up toxins that would earn perpetrators federal jail time if they dumped it into any canal other than the alimentary.
What we need is a green movement for the human body. Improving consumer protections against "body dumping" must start with the FDA. Fortunately, even with a regulation-averse Congress, much of the FDA's powers are interpreted internally. There are numerous administrative steps the FDA can take without Congress butting in -- if it so motivated by public alarm. You can contact your regional FDA office and make some noise. Several good organizations under the banner of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics -- including the Environmental Working Group and Health Care Without Harm -- have been banging the drum in Washington, but they need our help to be effective.
It seems our city sewers have more protections than we do. As a creative alternative, perhaps we could declare ourselves micro-dumps and ask for protections under the EPA. Or we might seek relief from broader protections granted to us under the Occupational Safety and Health Organization (OSHA). Hazmat-clad technicians could scan our ditty bags for offending lipstick and hand creams.
One has to wonder if all this would be different if men wore makeup and a tad more product in their hair.
Estelle Hayes is a Silicon Valley journalist and blogger.
Follow Estelle Hayes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/estellehayes
The route of exposure (inhalation, ingestion, skin contact/absorption etc.) is everything when talking about toxicity. Your argument about nitrosamines in cosmetics is poor because your sources show a link to cancer from ingestion NOT from skin contact. Cite a source that shows skin testing.
In toxicology, "the dose makes the poison". Even the safest over the counter or homeopathic remedies have a toxic dose. If you take too much, it may harm you. Even water can kill you if you drink extreme amounts (yes there have been cases of this). SO a worker who is exposed to high levels of propylene glycol may need to wear gloves, but the tiny amount in your deodorant probably isnt going to harm you.
Also, none of your sources relate enough information about the toxicants. Someone who doesnt have any background in toxicology wouldnt know that your sources dont give enough information to show a link between your claims and what the studies actually show. Basically your sources are telling us to believe them without showing evidence.
To those who commented, just because something is "natural" doesn't automatically mean it can be trusted. Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury are natural too. And just because something is natural or even food based doesnt mean its safe at high concentrations and in the way you may intend to use it (going back to route of exposure and dose).
There aren't just good companies and bad companies (or good industries and bad industries) as many like to paint them, many are doing their best, while many can be pretty shady sometimes.
i do agree we need to be more educated about what we put on our body. i just don't want big FDA reg's to run small companies away who are trying to compete against the large multi-nationals. Big FDA reg's help the big companies in a sick way because the big guys can take it in stride while little guys get crushed.
Estelle gets the number of chemicals banned in the EU Cosmetics Directive wrong by a factor of 10! Great journalism! She is demonstrably wrong on many points, and I have tried to provide a link to a rebuttal article I have written, but it gets "moderated" - ie censored (and this probably will also, now I've written this!).
Chemicals are typically not studied for their low-dose health effects, not studied on vulnerable populations, not studied for the toxicity of chemical mixtures -- and many chemicals are not studied at all, period. While I appreciate that some of the commenters here have worked inside the chemical industry and cosmetics industry, and feel they have insider knowledge, the fact is, there are no legal requirements for companies to assess the health risks of the chemicals they put into personal care products, or the health impacts to heavily exposed people such as salon workers. Our current system encourages ignorance about these matters.
Even chemists are not required to understand the health effects of the chemicals they create. It's possible to get a PhD in chemistry in the U.S. without ever taking a course in environmental health, toxicology or biology. But we know enough now to know that chemicals, like drugs, can have a profound impact on health. It's time to bring cosmetic chemistry, chemical risk assessment and government regulations into the 21st century.
I agree that the safety of ALL (natural and synthetic) chemicals should be correctly assessed - there is no excuse not to do this, and this IS happening in the EU (at great expense). However, your arguments are mostly based on loose science, supposition and generalisations. If it were up to you, chemicals would be banned in the absence of any proof of possible harm. Your stance on parabens is a classic example of this. May I remind you that you are demanding in the USA, in effect, what already happens in the EU (remember our exchange on your own blog - and the comment of mine that you removed because you had no answer?). Yet, when the EU's experts on the SCCS rule that parabens are safe for use, you dedcide that even that is not good enough. Just as the EWG are more interested in raising millions of dollars on donations ($6million in 2008 - spending over $3 million on their salaries) than in true safety of cosmetics, you are more interested in selling your book. Your recent lecture in Tennessee demonstrates that you have no respect for fafacts, and you keep pumping out the same old myths about cosmetics. Your arguments will only aappeal to those who share your beliefs and your lack of scientific
You state that many chemicals are not studied at all - period. This is not true of synthetic chemicals - the vast majority of synthetic chemicals will have some level of safety data, it is more true of naturals.
"Even chemists are not required to understand the health effects of the chemicals they create" - on what basis do you make this statement? The fact that a PhD student doesn't have to study environmental health etc is not proof of your claim. Drugs ARE chemicals - you talk of chemicals in such a way that it is clear you don't really understand what a "chemical" is. Everything in existance is chemical. Yes, some synthetic chemicals CAN have a profound impact on health, which is why a risk assessment is required,and not the ludicrous, ineffective hazard-only rating system on Skin Deep - this offers NO information on the safety of any cosmetic product - only a mass of errors and misinformation.
Unfortunately Arbonne is a bit of a greenwasher in my opinion and in the opinions of others.
Here is one article:
http://safemama.com/2009/05/05/faq-why-arent-arbonne-baby-products-on-your-list/
And this:
http://thebeautybrains.com/2006/07/19/are-arbonne-products-the-best-skin-care-you-can-buy/
The formulations may not directly contain mineral oil but they do contain other petroleum rooted compounds and many, many synthetics that can hardly be called natural and whose safety is undetermined. At the very least it is clear that the company does not talk transparently about its ingredients which for me is a major cause for alarm and general distrust of the entire brand.
Some examples: Polysorbate 61, Dimethicone, PEG-100 Stearate, Ceteareth-20, Carbomer, Disodium EDTA, Quaternium-15, Triethanolamine
PEG ingredients are of particularly non-botanical origin. Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) is produced from a reaction of ethylene glycol and ethylene oxide. Ethylene oxide is a building block chemical coming from Ethylene gas which is produced by steam cracking of petrochemicals. It can be naturally occurring from the ripening of fruits but that is not how most of the industrially available Ethylene is made. Ethylene oxide itself is highly toxic. "flammable, carcinogenic, mutagenic, irritating, and anaesthetic gas with a misleadingly pleasant aroma" according to Wikipedia. So at best we can say that PEGs are seriously synthetic chemicals.
http://www.makingcosmetics.com/msds1/msds-glyceryl-stearate-peg-100-stearate.pdf
From FDA.GOV
Does FDA regulate the use of preservatives in cosmetics?
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act1 (FD&C Act) does not authorize FDA to approve cosmetic ingredients, with the exception of color additives that are not coal-tar hair dyes. In general, cosmetic manufacturers may use any ingredient they choose, except for a few ingredients that are prohibited by regulation. However, it is against the law to market a cosmetic in interstate commerce if it is adulterated. Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is adulterated if, among other reasons, it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious under the labeled conditions of use, or under customary or usual conditions of use.